482 A.2d 1226 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1984
This is an action by the plaintiff school board to recover for damages to the roofs of two schools in its district allegedly resulting from the use of the defendant's insulation products when the schools were constructed in 1967. In count one, the plaintiff alleges that the named defendant, Dow Chemical Company (Dow), negligently manufactured a roofing insulation product which was incorporated in the plaintiff's roofs. Count two sounds in strict products liability relative to the same product. In count three, the plaintiff alleges Dow acted recklessly and, in consequence thereof, the plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Dow has raised by special defenses the claims that counts one through three of the plaintiff's complaint are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. *142
The plaintiff moves to strike these special defenses on the ground that the school board enjoys the sovereign immunity of the state and is, therefore, immune to the statute of limitations defense.
The legal sufficiency of a complaint or special defense thereto may be challenged by a motion to strike. Practice Book § 152; Ivey, Barnum O'Mara v. IndianHarbor Properties, Inc.,
The plaintiff contends that it is not subject to a statute of limitations defense because it is clothed in sovereign immunity as an agent of the state. The protections offered by the doctrine of sovereign immunity have been extended to agents of the state acting in its behalf.Cahill v. Board of Education,
In determining whether a local school board is afforded the protections consistent with the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the courts look to whether the suit would operate to control or interfere with the activities of the state. Cahill v. Board of Education,
supra, 102; Lostumbo v. Board of Education,
Unlike the state, a town has no sovereign immunity.Murphy v. Ives,
The defendant urges the court to consider whether the transaction which is the subject of this litigation is "governmental" or "proprietary" in nature, contending that proprietary functions of a school board should not be vested with any protective shield of immunity. Somewhat related to this claim is the defendant's other contention that even if the school board has governmental immunity in its own right, its action to recover for defects in the roof waived that immunity.
The plaintiff's motion to strike is denied.